May 14, 2024

About Lumière, I'll just address his "lack of reaction" and another point regarding his development. More generally, regarding his lack of reaction, I think it's linked to the fact that you didn't know how you wanted him to act in the first place/ the meaning behind some of the mysteries back then rather than an actual "issue" so what I'm going to say probably won't be very relevant on that point.

How someone who is subject to various hallucinations and strange events is supposed to react ? Basically, there are an infinite number of possible answers - and these answers are neither good nor bad as long as you make them appear coherent. Thus, Lumière's 'lack of reaction' is  one reaction among many that you have more or less managed to make coherent by justifying it.

The first time, he chose not to pay any attention to old Carthel's words because the latter was crazy - even if it turned out that some of his words were a kind of premonition - it's ok . The second time he didn't pay attention to his hallucinations because his memory was fuzzy - ok. As his memory was blurred it was only natural that he paid no more attention than that to the name of the music sheet containing "murderer" - well ok. Then, when he had strange visions in the street, he simply concluded that they were impressions of déjà vu. In the end, he only started to worry about these strange phenomena during chapter 15, after his second encounter with the rat man.

Of course, such a 'reaction' can be supported by his personality, his way of seeing things, his confusion, his memory loss, his sense of priorities and even hidden symbolisms. Still, I can't manage to understand how, not only once until chapter 15, he didn't at least ponder a bit more on the matter - even if those closest to him told him he looked like a madman or that his behavior at the time kind of frightened them. I mean, even if he chose not to pay attention, he could 'at least' try to remember or go back to the places where such things happened or at least ponder a little on the matter. In the same way, if the aim here was really to get him to pay little attention, dwelling a bit more on the reasons for such a choice would provide a better understanding of the situation, give a better insight into his personality but at the same time shed a bit more light on this theme of 'murder and strange happenings'. On the other hand, I feel that "remembrance" is also a kind of key point, so having our mc try to remember would be a good parallel to that point.

Of course, such a process doesn't necessarily mean that he'll understand his situation at the snap of a finger, or that he'll try to change it etc... I think you're in a better position to know the consequences this could have on him.

To sum up a bit, I feel like his "lack of reaction" reaction is a bit "light" considering the importance of what's happening to him. By 'light' I simply mean that it's not sufficiently developed/explained. Nevertheless, I wouldn't go so far as to say that this makes Lumière incoherent, because you've more or less justified such a behaviour - so maybe it's me being too picky again.

Anyway, regarding Lumière development, I find interesting the way you portrayed him being "lost" amidst the misery seeking for a "star" to guide him - something he has trouble understanding,  something that has lost all light for him . In a way, from the start, when he chose to be a magician, the purpose/star he chose wasn't really his own in that "making people smile" was Demeter's in the first place. Although I think that deep down he had one of his own (perhaps to change the world), he simply refused to admit it one way or another (in a way, for him, making people smile was not a way of turning them away from their own hearts but a way of changing the world). This explains a lot, especially his vision of things during the performance of the first chapter. In the end, through these first 15 chapters, it's as if the 'sun' was somehow 'shining' back into Lumière's heart - only to be eclipsed by a cloud of grief, in that I doubt Sister Alinde/Father Benedict will emerge intact from this intrusion. Perhaps the intruder already killed them or maybe Lumière will be the one to do so, as a sort of compensation for having "borrowed" Despair's powers, who knows ? There are so much things to say about Lumière, but I'll keep my thoughts for later, as they aren't about criticism.

Speaking of criticism, the only one I have regarding this matter is that you may have made Lumière's "situation" a bit too clear too early on throughout Father Benedict's words (I think it was around chapter 4 or 5). That's not 'bad' in itself in that it allows the reader to analyze Lumière's behavior later on - it's another perspective- but I just think it may be better to let the reader form their own opinions about him first or at least try to understand his situation as the chapters go by and then make it a bit more explicit than the other way round - but on that point, it may just be a matter of taste.

Overall, I don't really think that the reading experience itself was that harsh- at least not to the point of the 15 first chapters being a pure torture to read. Of course there are surely some things that need to be reworked to improve the whole experience - but generally speaking you still managed to do well and I'm sure that you will do even better with the rewrite ^^  2/2

Loading...

Loading...

Loading...

Loading...

Loading...

Loading...

1

May 14, 2024

As this ( long ) comment is essentially about "criticism", it will focus on two points: the slowness - mostly because it was a problem you mentioned - and the character of Lumière - because, in my opinion, this is where the '"""""harshness"""""' of the reading experience lies.

First of all, I don't think the slowness stems so much from the pace of the story itself as from the building up. Both are slow indeed, but not too slow - at least not to me. On the other hand, since Lumière's state of mind is one of the plot's crux I find it interesting, if not necessary, to linger a little longer than usual on 'slice of life' events in order to get a better insight into his perception, to understand him better, but also to grasp a little more of the economic and social context - these two themes being closely linked. At least I think this was a thread you wanted to "weave" through these first 15 chapters. And you've succeeded in doing that.

Then, Leiden is a city bathed in rain - a barrier of clouds separating the poorest from the richest, who are more likely to reach for the sun- hope- by building structures above the clouds. But even under the rain, the differences between the social classes remain, as shown by the 'dam' between middle and low boroughs - a dam formed by the soldiers maintaining 'order' and the city's policies.

More generally, those closest to the sun don't want a cloud of misery to overshadow it, while those trapped within it don't want more rain to fall on them. Thus, every lower social class is relegated to the status of pests, of mice - to better be contained in a corner if they can't be readily eaten. On that note, I really like the parallel you drew with of mice and men, with themes suchs as oppression or the impossibility of getting the sun one wants because of social misery.

Then, if they can't reach the sun,  mice can only imagine a world where the sun shines above them, or more simply 'seek' an alternative. And because looking for the sun doesn't necessarily mean changing the world - choosing to fight against the rain/ struggling -, one can simply look for the sun amidst the rain - accepting their fate- through a hot meal, a log fire or simple discussions for instance, as the dwindlers do, or by continuing to live as Mrs Hammond does after the death of her beloved. Horrors of war, moving forward, alleviating misery, more generally everyone has their reasons for choosing to stay under the rain - something Lumière somehow finds hard to understand.

On the other hand, I think that the light/darkness symbolism is well brought out in the world building (I'll come back to what this represents more specifically for Lumière later on), both with the weather conditions and with symbols like the white dove in the grey sky, the stars/gods that 'guide' the lost within the night (which reinforces/emphasizes the influence of religion within society) or simply through the characters' relationships themselves - for example how Lumière is a kind of 'sun' for the others, or how those close to him are such to him.

That being said, to me, the building up  isn't too slow,  it "appears" to be too slow, and this for 2 reasons :  the lack of " murderer's references  and the slice-of-life events themselves.

Concerning the slice-of-life events, this may seems contradictory to what I said above, so it's necessary to expand a bit on this point.

In the first place, the problem here isn't so much what they 'add' to the story, in that, if I've understood correctly, the aim through them was both to confront Lumière's perception and  show the reasons why someone might choose to stay under the rain, while introducing some characters. The "problem" is precisely that they focus on a single perspective - sun being hope amidst cruelty=> accepting one's fate.

Well, considering your intention to have the people around Lumière portray such a perception and for him to be confused about this matter, focusing solely on this perspective is rather coherent. However ( yes I'm being a bit picky) , I doubt that everyone around him sees the sun as hope amidst cruelty - perhaps some have chosen to demean it while others are simply no longer able to see it. In the same way, just as it can arise from having people around you holding the same speech and sharing the same vision - something " unsual" that you can't understand for one reason or another - confusion can also arise from the fact that, alongside these people who share a " same different vision", others share the same vision as you in a more or less extreme way => then you kind of torn between "2" positions. If so, will Lumière understand these people better ? Is he really the only one to think this way ? Why one would think like him ? That's food for thought. On the other hand, I think that Lumière himself embodies this 'counter- perception". Also, maybe those other "stars'/ perceptions will be revealed later so there is no need for me to " worry" about it.

As for the lack of reference to the 'murderer', this has a lot to do with Lumière's 'lack of reaction', but as this is a point I'm going to deal with later, I'll confine myself to a few brief explanations.

 From the very first 2 chapters, the notion of a 'murderer' was more or less implicitly established as a key point in the story - if not an important element. Linked to madness, mystery, it's an element that arouses a lot of interest and curiosity  while reading - which is very good. However, this curiosity tends to wane as the chapters progress, in that this theme is only "explained" a few times (4 times, it seems to me, with the score, the rat man and Lumière's strange visions in the street and during the score recital).

Here, I don't think the problem of a lack of 'reference' has so much to do with the frequency with which these events occur as it has more to do with the lack of impact they have on the story - more specifically on Lumière. By 'impact' I don't mean that it has to be overplayed or anything like that, in that it still has to be consistent with Lumière's personality, but I'll come back to that later. In the meantime, perhaps this silence was deliberate, and the "murderer" and "madness" motifs should have remained in the background at this point in the story - it's neither a bad choice, nor a questionable one in itself, but then why not at least increase the frequency of their occurrences to show that even if Lumière chooses not to pay attention to them, they're still present, and even increasingly recurrent, until they reach a certain climax in chapter 15? Idk, I think that would be one way among many to add a little more suspense and tension to the story, but above all to better symbolize the approaching 'threat'. 1/2

Loading...

Loading...

Loading...

Loading...

Loading...

Loading...

1

May 02, 2024

To:GoneSoSoon

Mhh I see ^^ then I'll probably read straight until chapter 15 and provide you with a detailed critique, if you don't mind, as I think it will be more relevant than doing so chapter by chapter or every 2/3 chapters in terms of hindsight/ insight  - I'll see as I read.
Anyway, I'll keep your explanations in mind, and wish you well with your rewrite 

Loading...

Loading...

Loading...

Loading...

Loading...

Loading...

1

Apr 29, 2024

Oki there are a lot of things to say, so I'll simply list my thoughts.

About old Carthel's words:

Generally speaking, these might be "simple" premonitions, being fairly general and close in time to the event they are referring to. Indeed, as the "burn" premonition showed, on the one hand it was impossible to know what was going to burn or when it was going to happen, and "the event" came true a few hours after old Carthel had uttered it. Furthermore, I don't think that the realization of the latter necessarily echoes death  something "very" negative in that there were no casualties as a result of the fire, apart from a slight burn on the body of the Monastery Father. Lastly, Lumière is not necessarily the object of the latter, in that on that autumn day it was the monastery that burned, not "him". Nevertheless, I wonder if the object of the premonitions isn't more or less closely related to our mc, in that the monastery had actually something to do with him.

On the other hand, the latter can also be 'simple' warnings, about something likely to happen soon.

Thus, such reasoning applied to the premonition "murderer" would simply mean that a murderer is likely to strike very soon eg Lumière, or one of his acquaintances, could be one of their victims just as our mc could himself be the murderer. At the same time, these words could also be a kind of warning that Lumière will have to be attentive to events as they happen, or simply to himself in case he'll "lose control" and turn into a "murderer".

About "losing control":

( So here, it's the assumption that "murderer" actually qualifies Lumière and/or that "losing control" = becoming a murderer. )

Here, I think we need to distinguish between two ways of losing control: the "general" and the "provoked".

So, in the first case, in lotm there were 3 stages of "losing control": hallucinations, strange states and transformation. I wonder then, if Lumière isn't simply in the first stage in that the words he heard from old Carthel's mouth were "only" the fruit of his imagination, some ravings in his head - just like the dark figure he saw in the monastery when he had a headache. Carthel's  "thousand voices" when he said it, and our mc's headache, reminded me of that. On the other hand, I wonder what caused these ravings as I don't think such things were something Lumière had experienced in the past. Let's say old Carthel's words were indeed real, then would these have been some kind of "seed" planted in Lumière's mind? A kind of trigger event ? 🤔

Then to avoid losing control, Lumière would have to suppress his desire for revenge -  or any other reason that might lead someone to "kill" - and/or have some kind of "anchor" ?

On the other hand, the " provoked losing control" simply refers to the method that the Hanged man shared with Little Sun =>  voluntarily "plunging" oneself into a state of mind that simulates stage 1 and then "regaining control". Here, I don't think stage 1's hallucinations refer to the raving "murderer" (because I don't think Lumière will do that to hear the ravings and, more simply, in lotm such a method had enabled the sun to avoid going on a mission => here, avoiding is important) but more to a means for Lumière to plunge himself into a trance state in order to commit atrocities ( atrocities being the hallucinations). Could this refer to him lying to himself? That he plunges himself into an illusion, into a lie, in order to convince himself that his " real" actions are not reality, or that it wasn't him because he wasn't in his normal state? Or simply to be able to "kill" more easily? In any case,  I think the primary aim would be, among other things, to unload the psychological burden that such actions could have on him. To sum up, it will be a sort of " this is not real, so I'm not doing anything wrong, I still have a good moral"  or a " People aren't real, so I can kill them" logic ?
Then maybe, the avertissement in Carthel's words would be that Lumière needs to be careful when using this method otherwise he'll remain in this " state" forever, confusing reality and " hallucinations".

About Lumière:

- ( I dont really like the terms "good" and "bad" but they're the only relevant ones I've come up with so far) his state of mind/ morals: firstly I get the impression that his """good"""" morals ( pity) is not something natural to him, a trait of his personality. Rather, it's something that's been """"imposed on him"" => carved into his bones. It must have been through the precepts of the Father of the Monastery in that I think he had a certain influence on our mc. So, Lumière applies (or tries to apply) such a state of mind not because it means anything to him but simply by automatism, idk how to explain it.
The reciprocal might be possible in that Lumière had "good morals" from the start, but these were rotten by the corrupted world he lives in.
- Assuming that Lumière had "bad" morals from the start: so maybe the Father felt that the education he gave Lumière was a kind of seal to prevent him from acting badly? ( like a kind of Anchor? ) => so acting like a magician and restricting him to using only doves and roses is a way of channeling his initial  "madness"? To turn him into a kind of "hope" ? In any case, if such a thing has made it possible to "contain" Lumière, its effects are not absolute. Indeed, if the dove symbolizes freedom, its imprisonment in a cage - the world in which Lumière lives - only accentuates the cruelty of servitude. Similarly, while the red rose is a symbol of romance and passion, the black rose - tarnished by the world - is a symbol of death, sad love and even despair.
- if no star chooses to shine for Lumière, then he'll have to become his own "Light" so to speak - but it won't be without a counterpart, I suppose.

Loading...

Loading...

Loading...

Loading...

Loading...

Loading...

1

Apr 23, 2024

"dreams" are often perceived as a driving force in one's life: a utopian world beyond the fence where all their fantasies might become reality. Dreams of a better life, of bringing something to the world, or of touching what makes the heart skip a beat - these are diverse, yet all have one thing in common : hope. Every day, then, is a means of getting a little closer to that fence and touching that dream with the fingertips, heart bathing in an endless enthusiasm. This process is more or less accentuated according to one's social class, the poorest filling with their dreams what they can't fill with their wealth.

However, what happens when one crosses the fence and realizes that the grass there is just as withered, if not a little more, than where they came from ? What happens when one fulfills their dreams only to realize they didn't escape from the awfulness of the world, or even that it only accentuated it? What's more, when there's no going back ? Because Lumière can't go back, having both lost his childlike naivety and somehow realized that no matter which side of the fence he stands on, the world will always remain the same, harsh and cold.

While the clown and the magician have the same purpose - to entertain/ distract - the former does so by making people laugh, by mocking the truth, while the latter does so by creating illusions, lies: appearances devoid of reality. For if appearances are a way for those who contemplate them to catch a glimpse of the other side of the fence, the latter isn't real - and Lumière knows it. On the other hand, our liar's career boils down to making others dream, when he can no longer do so - and this perpetually to the rhythm of the shows.

Finally, how can one move forward when it means sinking ever deeper into the harshness of the world? One can try to "dream" again, but how Lumière who can only "hope " can do so? Then one can only lament and despite the world with a smile plastered on their face.

Side note about the title  : Like the 'queen of spades', 'king of spades' or 'jack of spades', I think 'sinner of the spades' might refer to a card ( a bit like a Blasphemy card? ) or more generally to a "status". As for what it means or symbolizes, it's too early to say, but I can make a few assumptions 🤔 Firstly, we have to assume that the various churches ( if there are several )  have a strong hold on society, so the fact that the name of the card/status mentions "sinner" means that its holder is in a way or another bound to become an "enemy of the church" , or at the very least will take actions that contradict churches' values. So, if this card refers to a "status" of our mc ( future or present if Lumière already has the card on him / has already acquired this status), this would mean that he would become or would be a kind of antagonist ? I find it interesting bc it means that in a way his journey would boil down to him becoming one or trying not to. Then I wonder how and why this will happen?
On the other hand, having in mind that "pity had been carved deep into his bones" , I wonder what will be the result of this sort of "state of mind' clashing with the merciless' one of a 'villain'. As depicted in this chapter, I feel like our mc is already "torn" between these two but somehow manage to find a sort of "balance" by lying to himself ( the oscillation between his different thoughts during the show depicts it well I think ). At the end of the day, even though Lumière might be a professional liar, I think he won't be able to lie to himself endlessly. Overall, I feel like somehow lying does more harm than anything else, maybe not at the moment, but probably in the long term- a bit like a butterfly effect. To an extent, one might even turn mad, confusing both truth with lies and reality with illusion. Also from a psychological point of view, lying somehow increases the 'cognitive load', so I can't wait to see how you will materialize this.
Side note 2 about " murderer" :  here it's as if the thousands of voices were those of our mc "future" victims in a way
Side note 3 : As  life doesn't stop once one's crossed the fence, I find it interesting that you've somehow chosen to deal with what happens once someone is on the other side, and what's more, through the assumption that the other side isn't as green as they would like it to be. There are other few things I find interesting, such as instead of following the journey of someone trying to become better => following the journey of someone  trying not to be worst or simply becoming worst, or other few little details in the chapter I didn't dwell on bc I'm too sleepy. Overall, it makes me curious to see how will be your take on those different concepts ^^

Loading...

Loading...

Loading...

Loading...

Loading...

Loading...

1

Apr 21, 2024

"What we accomplish on the inside changes the reality on the outside." ( Otto Rank ) sums up the dragon's words, or how "reality" is - ultimately - solely in the eye of the beholder.

In theory, the perception of such a concept is not immutable, fluctuating - "actualizing" - with new feelings, experiences and interactions. Nevertheless, for a vagrant whose only basis of normality is a willless appearance filled by the remnants of her dreams and hopes, such a process is not easy for Aelem. To a certain extent, it could even be argued that she is a spectator who cannot see, in that her Will is a kind of "glasses" enabling her only to observe what makes it "stronger". This dynamic is even more important given that her life boils down to its survival.

More generally, to her, "living" has always been a matter of "will", and "existing" has always been guided by the "will to live" - or, in other words, that everyone exists because they want to live. Thus, how can she understand that one might want to die, face up to the "inevitable" she so dreads?

While one wants to turn their back on the inevitable, the other wants to "embrace" it : two repulsive forces that can only hurt each other.

I find it interesting that in order to live, Aelem must somehow "kill" a part of herself. To this end, I wonder how she will manage to "kill" something that "doesn't exist", the dragon's will being only something abstract, thoughts without proper meaning - an echo of the past.

Perhaps to make it "exist" she will first have to name it, hence the "importance" of the dragon's name ?

On a purely material level, it would be enough to remove the runes engraved in our mc's heart, which are necessary to contain the dragon's will. However, as this would be a risky operation, Aelem's chances of survival would be reduced, and there's no guarantee that she'd be willing to take such a risk. The second option would be her death, which would inevitably mean the death of the dragon as a whole. In that case why the latter enjoined her to survive and end "his" life, not hers? This implies that the two are more or less distincts ?

On a purely abstract level, "killing" refers, I think, more to making the dragon's will "disappear", either by dominating it with a stronger will (Aelem's), "transforming" it or killing it within the dream world, the latter being the only place where Aelem can "see" it .

On the other hand, idk, I feel like "killing" doesn't necessarily refer to "taking life away" but more to "freeing" and again there are so many ways to free "someone".

side note 1: The fact that the dragon is similar to a human being in every way supports the idea that one only becomes a monster when they are perceived as such. side note 2: in the same way as Aelem, who carries the dragon's will, Omen carries his father's "Will" - will that the latter engraved in his son being with the death of his mother. It's, again, an interesting parallel. side note 3 about Aelem's father's motivations:
- those could follow the same purpose - even though his Will might be different - as Omen's father's
- the fact that the dragon trusted him so much shows that they had a close relationship ? So maybe he did all this so that the latter would protect his daughter? ( But I'm not convinced ) or maybe he "sacrificed" his daughter because he wanted his "friend" to go on living?
side note 4 : to come back to killing the dragon's will, I also wonder if this wouldn't follow a "give-and-take" mechanic ? in that to make it disappear, Aelem would have to give something equivalent to the Will's death ( a bit like a compensation ) ?
side note 5 : maybe "killing" is just what qualify an agreement between Aelem and the dragon's will
Side note 6 : There was nothing like a discussion in a field of white dahlias - hopes for the future and symbols of rebirth - to rekindle Aelem's hopes.

Loading...

Loading...

Loading...

Loading...

Loading...

Loading...

1

Apr 19, 2024

"Justice must not only be done; it must also be seen to be done" (  Lord Hewart ) sets " an appearance standard" . In other words, "judges and decision-makers more widely cannot hear a case if, from the perspective of reasonable and informed observer, their impartiality might reasonably appear to be compromised" .  On the other hand, when  judges hands down a decision, they have to justify it (using legal arguments), not only to make it understandable, but above all to prevent justice from becoming too "arbitrary". 

Then, applied to the story, Nephilim more widely cannot hear a case ( qualify a Leviathan as a monster and order to kill them ) if, from the perspective of reasonable and informed observer ( the mankind/ people of Velan ), their impartiality might reasonably appear to be compromised" . On the other hand, the legal argument they'll use  to substantiate such a decision will be the History. 

The conflict between Nephilim and Leviathans being ancient, apart from a few "remnants" of the two enemies, there is nothing else except reminiscences.     . Therefore,  History is nothing more than a malleable collection of memories that one can narrate at will to suit their "purpose" ( legitimate their actions) or the vision they want to impose on "observers", who  are supposed to appreciate their impartiality but ultimately  cannot achieve this, being reduced to mere "spectating eyes that cannot see" - the only basis of information they have being a "distorted" one.

So, for people who have no other basis of normalcy, the one of the victor might only be the right one.  No matter how much the Nephilim's clothes are stained with the blood of innocents, their declaration - decision- will always be seen as fair because it's legitimate,  and the "observers" trust in them can only grow with time.

In law (at least in European law), there are 2 types of "impartiality": objective impartiality and subjective impartiality. To put it simply, subjective impartiality refers to the judge's convictions and ethics ( their mindest ) , while objective impartiality encompasses  the "judge's action" - the means they use to carry out their duties => rendering justice. Here, in both cases, it's impossible for observers to say whether the Nephilim are impartial or not ( Is it really peacekeeping that guides their choice, or simply hatred ), as their behavior is considered "normal". 

More generally, History's only  meaning is the one of those  who are in a position to impose their own - e.g the Nephilim. To return to the concept of names, observers all have the same criterias - criterias implicitly imposed by the Nephilim in order to legitimize them + criteria to which the latter provide the conditions for them to be fulfilled. So, to an extent, I think that as long as the Narrator manages to be perceived as "right", he can be trusted. And the Narrator will be able to maintain such an appearance until an another - more legitimate-looking - History comes into being and is powerful enough to impose itself. ( Omen's vision and, more generally, his "journey", which would symbolize the development of a new meaning of History). 

  
( Middle side note 1 :  Such reasoning applies reciprocally to the Leviathans
Middle side note 2 : in other words I think I just paraphrased what you explained the other day )  

This chapter highlights well the collision between the two visions of History as told by the two enemies. To the Nephilim, finding the dragon's name would be a way of """""gaining the upper hand"""" over it and not transforming. To the Leviathans, finding the name would be a way of freeing them from their cage, and the story told by the Nephilim would just be a way of attracting the Leviathans to kill them more easily - if I've understood correctly. 

Having in mind everything we've talked about before, several " possible conclusions" ( not all of them of course ) are possible :

- both versions can be considered as truths or lies.

- About the dragon's version:  having one of his purpose  in mind ( taking over Aelem ) saying such a thing would be tantamount to making the inevitable real (the death of her Hope: Aelem will never be able to live a normal woman's life, as she's destined to wander/turn into a monster). Then she can no longer put off grieving with her wish - and must face up to it. On the other hand, as you explained, the dragon is also a thrill seeker, a remnant of a will, a spectator who can only manipulate, and  being a Leviathan is the "last act" of "its" existence, so "it" might """take advantage"""" of it in every possible way. ( On this point, I can't put my thoughts into words but it does make sense )

- I don't think the "solution" lies in naming the dragon itself, because as we've seen since the beginning of the story naming is a "personal" thing, with a meaning that's specific to each person - like the husband's one for instance . Here, the dragon's name means "freedom" for both "it" and Aelem, but this "freedom" has a different meaning for each of them: living a normal life and freeing themselves. In other words, their purpose is different. So, does " being free" inevitably imply imprisoning the other, or is it possible for both of them to be free? Is the wish to be free of a dead person, labeled as a monster, worth less than that of a human? Conversely, is the wish to live of a mere mortal worth less than the wish of a dragon who has been able to rival the gods ? In other words ( perhaps ) , as you said, for the one who is already dead, yet still live , would one seek to live or would one seek to live ? 
More generally, I think the answer to these questions results from a certain "agreement" between the two (a bit like Omen and Aelem agreeing on their respective names and meanings) - an agreement whose form can vary.

Loading...

Loading...

Loading...

Loading...

Loading...

Loading...

1

Apr 12, 2024

If feeding the hungry is what separates a butcher from an executioner, and bringing harm  is what separates a protector from a husband, then, ultimately, what separates a monster from a human - two individuals who seek to "live in peace" and who won't hesitate to bring harm to achieve such a purpose ?

From "Appearance" to "the number of lives they've taken" or  "the animosity their hearts may harbor",  all reasons can be stated, but I don't think any of them will be really relevant in that everyone from the Paragon to the simple inhabitant of Velan can be considered a "monster" to a certain extent. The scales covering the vermilion woman's body would make her more monstrous than Omen's father, who killed his wife in front of his son;  the hands of both Leviathans and Nephilim are stained with blood however one will remain more monstrous than the other - they purpose being "more legitimate"  - etc....

Overall, since everyone's eyes are subjective mirrors, even the most "human" of individuals can be reflected as a "monster" . Then perhaps the common denominator of these mirrors would be "humanity" or, in other words, "showing humanity" - be it compassion, kindness or sensitivity? But then again, everyone is more or less sensitive to these components implying disparate qualifications with different meanings- a bit like the system of names.

And "Nomination" implies "commitment".  In the case of "monster" and "human", " to commit" would refer " killing"  : since a monster's life is of lesser value - harmful - than that of a human, every "monsters" deserve to be killed. In other words, to name one a monster is akin to dehumanize them. Such a dynamic is applied by the Paragons, who are unable to name  someone either a monster or a human by themselves (either because of their training, history, habit or simply under the influence of Harbinger) thus "blindly" follow the orders and qualifications of Omen's father. ( until the golden haired boy decides to create a new one by wanting to stop "killing").

Protecting the people of Velan, they may act as "protectors", but they also bring harm, just as a"husband" might. They both care, they both harm, the only difference being that in the case of the "husband" it's the person they care about who suffers that pain.

As the staging of Aelem's death in the town - with Lace and Howl's reactions - or simply the fact that Omen cares about her showed, it's hard to hurt someone when that someone is individualized, when they are given meaning.

In the end, it can be said that what makes someone's life more precious than another is simply the meaning one chooses to give it - and to a certain extent, one won't hesitate to turn into a "monster" to save that "life". And isn't such a dynamic the crux of the Trolley's problem ?

Side note 1 :  the outstretched hand, Aelem's invitation, is a bit like an invitation to cross the fence for Omen, or at least a 'materialization' of support to help him cross. Given his reaction, it's as if he'd finally "put words" to something he'd been waiting for.
Side note 2 : the concept of "humanity" could be linked to the one of "lifeline" mentioned earlier, the latter encompassing both aspects of subjectivity and objectivity.

Loading...

Loading...

Loading...

Loading...

Loading...

Loading...

1

Apr 11, 2024

"We are guardians, but also a bunch of miserable wretches that are constantly fighting against threats and madness." ( lotm ), I think this quote applies well to the Paragons - guardians of humanity fighting Danger in all its forms - as to Aelem - a prey to two different purposes: her own and that of the dragon. 

So in this maze of repulsive forces, their only salvation is a breadcrumb to humanity, their own humanity - flowers for the Paragons, "normalcy" for Aelem. With all its symbolism in mind, there was simply nothing better than the flower to symbolize the butterfly's lifeline - a breadcrumb personified by Aelem, the Hyacinth, in that it is alongside her that Omen's humanity is most vivid. 

Beyond that, what's interesting here is that what makes this lifeline solid is not so much its sturdiness or durability - as, for example, stone or stainless steel might be - but the symbolism it encompasses: happy memories, a wish. 

Indeed, in addition to its beauty, a flower is also something very fragile that needs to be protected if it is not to lose its beauty and wither rapidly. To an extent, in line with the concept of inevitability/individualization, a flower is destined to wither when one picks it - when one individualizes it - in order to keep it close to them, so protecting it would mean trying to postpone this inevitability as far as possible. On the other hand, wouldn't picking it mean becoming an "executioner" in a way? Such a logic must surely be nuanced. 

I think that the dynamic of "picking a flower" for Omen refers more to the fact of marrying Aelem, individualizing her completely, and the responsibilities that this entails, not so much protecting her from others as protecting her from himself (in that, if need be, he would, according to him, be the mirror of his father and the potential harm he could inflict on her will be what makes her fade). 

On the other hand, no matter whether it's picked or not, "the Flower that once has bloomed forever dies". "Die" can take many forms. Aside from Aelem's death, I wonder if it could simply refer to her no longer wishing to be Omen's flower. I just have a bad omen, so to speak, regarding "I'll be by your side as long as you wish". Aelem may no longer wish to be Omen's flower for various reasons, but if so, will Omen accept her decision ? On the other hand, such a sentence illustrates the fact that our Butterfly Knight is always a little reluctant to commit to her, or at least to acknowledge that he "wants" to do something for himself,  in that the commitment to stay by her side underlies her wish. 

Overall, both Aelem and Omen are each other's lifeline, in that they keep each other from going "mad" and reveal their "good sides". What's more, no matter what the person is named,  don't their eyes contain the most beautiful mirror of all - one in which they are reflected simply as they are ? Then Omen's eyes simply reflect Aelem, a beautiful woman, just as her eyes reflect a magnificent painting not too similar to the Harbinger of the Paragon. 

Because they both refer to "the announcement of an event", "Omen" and "Harbinger" often tend to be put on the same level, to be considered synonyms or, more generally, "reflections". Such a perception is portrayed here in that both Omen and his father share the same blood, perhaps have certain similar physical characteristics, or simply walk the "same path". 

However, one difference remains, at least to me.

"Harbinger" is on a more concrete level in that "it" announces, declares, something that is going to happen - just as Omen's father announced to the golden haired boy that he is "the Omen of a powerful future". Nevertheless, this declaration is vague, imprecise - in other words,  we know something is going to happen, but not "how" is it going to happen (a bit like clouds announcing a storm, but we don't know whether it will be violent or not). "Omen on the other hand, is more abstract, and refers more to something that can happen. This "event" can be positive or negative, depending on the meaning one gives it. To Omen's father, Omen is the omen of his Will, to the people of Velan he is the omen of "peace", to Aelem the omen of a life she's always dreamed of. 

In a way, Omen has always sought his meaning in what he reflected in others, or more simply in what they "declared" about him - acting according to their words, disguising himself sometimes as a doll, sometimes as a knight or a vassal: in anything that might reflect in the "mirror" something other than the image of his father, whom he so abhors.

Nevertheless, one can disguise themselves as anyone, but they remain ultimately "themselves". Then "crossing the fence" is not simply a matter of flying off the flower on which he's sitting, of breaking out of the cocoon in which he's trapped, but also of agreeing to look at his own reflection in "the mirror" and declare what it means to him - in other words, whether this "Omen" he sees  is a bad one or a good one.

Side note : I didn't dwell on it but I really like the fact that this chapter "puts into words" concepts that have been more or less implicitly depicted since the beginning of the story, such as fence, inevitability, the meaning of names, the notion of purpose etc....

Loading...

Loading...

Loading...

Loading...

Loading...

Loading...

1

Apr 02, 2024

To:GoneSoSoon

I fully agree that such processes are "normal" for human beings. However, the manner, degree, frequency, and subjects to which they are attached are inherent to each individual - age, experience, maturity, simple tastes or emotions are all influencing factors.  How "inconsistent" or "consistent" your characters appear will depend in part on how you've portrayed them throughout the story.

Underlying such processes/changes is always a more or less implicit/meaningful thread that will make the whole thing consistent in the eyes of the reader.

Applied to your work, it's precisely this "common thread" that keeps your characters coherent. In other words, it makes them consistent in their "inconsistency," in that there is a common thread behind each of their thinking and motivations that the reader can graps to understand why they can sometimes be so different.

This "common thread", this basis, can be clearly explained (e.g. the influencing factors: Omen's or Agreste's past, Kitsch's aspirations) or more abstract like your characters' different worldviews or different concepts (being a Leviathan/self-love/mask/commitment etc...).

Generally speaking, what makes a character consistent is that they follow their "own" line of conduct. However, the latter is not immutable, nor is their state of mind, so they may sometimes show inconsistency in order to change or simply to try new things. But isn't that human nature to adopt such behaviors? It will always be possible to relate your characters' thinking or motivations to this question's answer.

More generally, I think that as long as you manage to tie such processes to one or more threads or some kind of reason, your characters will always be consistent, and their inconsistency will always be justified, even if the latter seems "too much" because it will be for the sake of something.  And so far, you've always managed to do that. Let me give you 2/3 examples :
- Omen: his main thread is "putting out grief" - to do so he will adopt several "antagonistic" purposes, which will even end up contradicting his other threads (e.g. empty doll), but does this make him inconsistent? No. Why? Because there's another thread, the butterfly's one, which justifies the fact that he's always reaching out to others, even though he wants to isolate himself. The fact that he's attached to Aelem doesn't contradict the one that he wants to be an empty doll, because Omen is first and foremost a human being (and you've highlighted some spontaneous emotions throughout the story, so the reader implicitly understands that he's not that empty, or that he's starting to get attached to her).
- Aelem on the fact that she refuses to isolate herself: running away with Omen may seem incoherent, insofar as the purpose he has given her partly encompasses everything she longed for. Nevertheless, there's a thread running through her story from the beginning: "normalcy," and for someone who's been forced to live as a vagrant, there is nothing more 'normal' than wanting to live surrounded, in society. What makes her choice a consistent one is that she has stuck to her "line of conduct". It doesn't necessarily mean she's right, or that such a choice is necessarily the right one, but it's consistent with the character you've presented from the beginning of the story.
- Agreste: The choice he was about to make at the end of YHHM was not inconsistent regarding the meaning of his common thread.

On that note, what also contributes to a good reading experience is that your characters make REALISTIC choices, and not necessarily good ones right away (e.g., when Agreste first spoke to Lihal) - which again, I think, makes your characters consistent with your desire to "humanize" them as much as possible ( after all it's part of being human to make mistakes and bad decisions).  More generally, it's good to see your characters in trouble, and not having everything handed to them on a platter because of their "role" in the story. 

Finally, what keeps your characters consistent is simply the fact that you take the time to introduce one "concept" or "thread" before introducing another. This gives the reader plenty of time to come to grips with what's at stake. In addition, since these concepts echo each other, it again helps the reader to connect the various decisions and thoughts to make them consistent, or to better understand the "inconsistencies".

Generally speaking, "inconsistency" is definitely something interesting to read. It makes your characters more human, and adds a little more unexpectedness to them and the story. In another way, it encourages reading by making one wonder about how an "inconsistency" can influence the rest of the plot.

Beyond that, how interesting an inconsistency will be depends to a large extent on two things: the way you present it in your story, and the state of mind of the reader.

From what I've read and what you've explained, you're more inclined to develop your characters' worldviews and dwell on the "psychological" effects of events on them. As a result, your characters are more likely to be inconsistent than if you were content to write very generic, "superficial" ones. In other words, the more in-depth you go with their development, the more likely they are to experience inconsistency.  Knowing your state of mind, it's a good thing, if not essential, to have inconsistencies.

The way you present the inconsistencies will have a lot to do with not making the reader feel like elements are coming out of nowhere or unwarranted in the middle of the story.

As for whether or not inconsistency is interesting to the reader, unfortunately, it's mostly a matter of taste. Some people prefer stories that get straight to the point, without too much psychological development and more rational choices for the characters rather than choices guided by their emotions, while others like more development, more "inconsistencies".

It will always be "too much" for one or "not enough" for another, so as long as it's "enough" for you, that's all that matters. 

In all objectivity, and as far as I can remember, I don't think I ever had the impression that your characters were "too" inconsistent in their thinking and motivations. On the contrary, this inconsistency has been part of their evolution or development - and I even think that so far you've found a balance (through worldbuilding, the importance you give to different facets of the characters at different moments in the story, the lessons they learn from their mistakes, etc.) that allows you to avoid doing "too much".On the other hand, the fact that "inconsistencies" don't just fit into the scheme of "I have a problem => the inconsistency is the solution to my problem => everything's for the best" can make them even more interesting to the reader, in that they are somehow "unexpected".

To give you a few examples of inconsistencies:
- If Omen's father becomes a blameless father overnight and comes to Omen in tears, apologizing without further explanation
 - people accepting Aelem overnight without explanation
the dragon gives Aelem his name for no reason in the next chapter
- Omen marries Aelem (at this point in the story), completely happy and fulfilled, whereas he was undecided 2 days before. In this case, I doubt that the "getting over his grief" thread will be enough to justify such behavior, at least not the way you've presented it + knowing how important every commitment, every name is to him ; unless you introduce another thread or find another explanation - but then you'll have to figure out how to introduce such a point without distorting what you've written so far.
- The only purpose that counts for Omen is to spend the rest of his life alongside Aelem, and the others are completely elided until the end.
- If you're portraying a very indecisive character, it would be inconsistent to see him make a clear decision unless you've dropped a few hints here and there before finally getting to the heart of the matter later.

To sum up:
- The common thread is definitely what makes your characters hold up to  this consistency while being "inconsistent". It can be diverse and varied, but it's essential if the reader is to understand what you're getting at.  I don't think it's necessarily about revealing everything at once, it's just about giving the right amount of informations, which you do well.
- You have to find a balance between the inconsistencies and their benefits for character development on the one hand, and how the story will "support" them on the other, what elements will respond to this or that problem, or how this or that concept will be introduced. Once that question is answered, the next step is to find the right time to introduce one concept rather than another, or if you want to integrate two, how would that be relevant, or would it be too much? Is this the right time in the story? Such a process is immediately apparent as one read and I think you're doing well
- Some characters will tend to be more inconsistents than others, but such a difference is not a problem, as it will be interesting for the reader to see how such opposite profiles work together.
- All means are good to make your story interesting to the reader, but the most important thing is that it remains interesting to you.
- Just as there are plenty of motivations or thoughts for characters to adopt, there are an infinite number of reasons why they might make such changes, and I think what's interesting for the reader isn't necessarily why your characters have changed their state of mind, but rather why they've adopted this state of mind and not another.

I hope these points are relevant enough to help you a little. Will keep this matter  in mind for the future just in case :)

I'm happy my comments are making you feel better in your own life in one way or another, they're here for that too. I hope everything will be okay for you

Loading...

Loading...

Loading...

Loading...

Loading...

Loading...

1

Mar 30, 2024

“Nothing should be given a name, lest that very name transform it.” ( Virginia Woolf ), I think that such a line embodies well Omen mindest when it comes to relationships. Indeed, naming something is above all a way to declare the value it may have  - and from this "value"  stems a certain degree of attachment.

Then for a doll for whom nothing has its "own personal" meaning except what others declare, who always hides his attachment behind impersonal relationships, naming one by their name might hold the greatest value possible. From the outset, Omen had always seen Aelem as a human being, like everyone else; an ultimately impersonal point of view, devoid of individuality. Nevertheless, despite his desire for impassivity to curb his attachment, Omen began to individualize Aelem: little by little the vermilion woman was no longer a mere human to be protected, but Aelem, a person.

So Omen calling Aelem by her name is a way for him to declare that he now sees her as an individual, that she has a special meaning for him.  I think it's a very nice way of portraying Omen's feelings -  whether romantic or not - towards her. Moreover, if I remember correctly, "individuality" was a notion that's been around for a long time, both in the concepts of actors and in a line that Aelem once said - I can't remember its exact words, but it seems to me that it was akin to just seeing people as people before/ rather than individuals.

At the same time, the protean aspect of a name is illustrated by the notions of "clothing" and "intimacy".  Indeed, for Aelem, who lived apart from the world as a spectator of mores, "clothing" meant nothing more than a means of hiding her scales from the gaze of others, or simply of surviving. On the other hand, the very essence of intimacy being "private", such a notion could not have been something she could have caught a glimpse of by simply observing folks outside.

To an extent, it can be said that her scales represented something of the "intimacy" a "human" might have. Thus, her body as such had no particular significance for her - hence her behavior at the tailor's shop. On the other hand, her cogitating on whether or not the dress would fit her was our protagonist's way of living the life of a woman she so longed for.

Another interesting thing is the "Omen's proposal", which highlights two different life wishes: one wishing to get away from the world that "adores" him, and the other wishing to live in a world that demeans her.

It now remains to be seen whether Omen has made such an offer of commitment as Protector or Omen. I think the two "roles" were confused in that, on the one hand, "running away" is a way for him to escape the inevitable by finding a "real", meaningful, purpose alongside Aelem, but it's also a way of protecting the latter from possible reprisals, even if they do manage to find the dragon's name. In any case, there was something authentic about such a declaration, and I think that in a way Omen was allowing himself to dream, to wish,  and more generally, to think about a future devoid of inevitability.

However, Aelem's question pushed him into a certain introspection and brought him back to reality, or at least to his sad reality.

On the one hand, knowing that his problems matter to her means, more generally speaking, that his emotions, things that were of no value to anyone until now, matter to someone. On the other hand, sharing such burdens with her will imply exposing her to the inevitability he is dealing with, sharing his weaknesses, and making him vulnerable in some way.  In this way, they'll both be a "weakness" to each other and managing to protect themselves can be a perilous mission.

Accepting that one's problems become those of a loved one, even though it's an important step in commitment", can be frightening, as it can make them feel guilty for placing such a burden on the shoulders of someone whom they want both to protect from harm and to look their best. Nevertheless, despite such fear, I sincerely hope that Omen will manage to take such a step.

After all, burdens seem to be lighter when carried by two - and crossing the fence is easier when one can rely on a warm hand.

Side note : Your take on different subjects is something I do really appreciate about you. Besides it being interesting and thought provoking,  it is just nice to see such thorough reflection . Your pov is one of your greatest strength alongside your ability to subvert expectations - and these allow you to create both unique and elaborate plots that go beyond the genre to which they belong or the prejudices the latter might hold e.g. romances that aren't for the sake of love by exploring commitment, self love and characters' personnal struggles. I don't know if I mentioned it back then, but such a "line of conduct" was something I really loved in YHHM so I'm glad to see that you're "constant" with it, but even if you weren't, it won't be a problem. Just as writing allows people to approach new points of view and constantly push back the boundaries, it is above all a means of conveying their own - and those may be more or less similar to certain prejudices or déjà vu. I think there is nothing wrong with it as long as the story remains authentic. And being authentic in your own way, is again, something I appreciate about you. Reading is not only about hunting details ( unlike what my blocks of text might suggest lol ) it's also about catching a glimpse of your perception regarding certain matters and how you will make them your own. In the same way, to me,  your work isn't meaningful only because of the symbolism it contains, it's meaningful because of your "meaning" within it. And your meaning is something I find beautiful. Overall, I do not only love your stories because of their beautiful prose and details, I simply love them because you wrote them. When it comes to novels, you're an author I do genuinely appreciate - your work means a lot to me, so are you as well ^^

Loading...

Loading...

Loading...

Loading...

Loading...

Loading...

1

Mar 26, 2024

Marriage is often seen as a seal upon two soul's desire to live eternally together, a means to declare their love towards each other. However, notwithstanding the beautiful symbolism it can hold, marriage remains a simple commitment and one can have many reasons to engage themselves. Then marriage is nothing more than a protean concept symbolizing for instance an exchange between two families, a mere component of normalcy.

To an extent, Death has always been Life's inevitability - everything is bound to disappear in one way or another. Then Mankind's main purpose would be to put off grief in the best way possible whether or not knowing if this conclusion - which is certain -  is about to happen soon.  To that end,  "love"," hatred", "normalcy", are so many plays- purposes/distractions - where one can act and distract themselves but more importantly give their life the best- or the most- meaning possible.

Both in its "classic" conception (which Aelem's pov may represent) and in that of Gaelis, the key points and underlying ideas of marriage remain the same: distraction, commitment, meaning and ( perhaps) love. However while the former implies a certain " freedom" in that spouses can decide which meaning they want to give to their common existence, the latter embodies a more narrow purpose exclusively death-centred  in that the inevitability  is like a heavier sword of Damocles, hanging over the spouse's heads. Such a conception brings another role in the play : the executionner - which I think embodies pretty well one of the butterfly's effect of commitment.

To an extent, given her nature in the eyes of others - a monster - and the dragon inside her, Aelem's execution is something of an inevitability. So for Omen, as for her in a way, the marriage will be the last line of defense before the certain conclusion - a way of buying a little time to find the dragon's name, or some other solution.

In any case, whatever the different "purposes" that may be at play for our Butterfly Knight, marriage is a kind of inevitability.

As a "protector", it is his "duty"( purpose ) to protect Aelem from Death as best as he can. However, in this case, the commitment takes on a more impersonal dimension in that Aelem remains simply a "vassal", "someone" to be protected devoid of name, meaning. So, if he were to take on the role of " executionner", killing her would certainly be a failure of his mission, but it would be less painful because of the distance between them. On the other hand,  such a failure can be seen as a blessing in disguise, in that killing her means "saving" humanity - it's one life for another.

As a "lover", marrying her means preventing himself from losing someone he cares about. It expresses a certain attachment, a certain recognition of his feelings for her, acknowledging her as a "weakness". Then the vermilion woman is no longer a "vassal" but Aelem, a woman he loves: the commitment becomes more personal. Killing her will not simply mean the failure of his mission as a knight, but a repetition of the past, meaning that he once again has been unable to protect someone he cares about.

To me the golden haired boy is a bit like a nesting doll, each of its components representing one of the role he's playing such as a knight, an empty doll , a protector and somehow the closer you get to the center of it the more personal the roles will be until you get to "Omen", a human being, who he truly is. However just as this role can help the butterfly hatch, the "executionner" can also become a part of the nesting doll that won't open anymore - another cocoon preventing our butterfly from fully hatching.

Side note 1 : such a vision of marriage embodies well the concept of shouldering death for the sake of others

Loading...

Loading...

Loading...

Loading...

Loading...

Loading...

0

Mar 22, 2024

2/3 ""little"" developments I want to add : 

- about Omen's "purposes" : At first sight, a " distraction" is supposed to prevent someone to think about something. Then,  applying "strictly", each "purposes" Omen will tend to follow - consciously or not, because of his nature, being a butterfly symbolically speaking- ( e.g shouldering death, helping aelem living a normal life, becoming a doll ) are supposed to distract him, prevent him of thinking about this inevitability approaching inexorably. However, here, their crux remains vivid and even more pregnant , as his father and what he embodies for our Knight is in a way what is preventing him from getting "fully" distracted ( On that note , I think that's Aelem might be, to Omen,  the one that comes closest to this concept of "distraction" as the latter tends to truly "forget" - e.g experiencing spontaneous/ genuine emotions -   even if it's for a short amount of time. ). Indeed, just as becoming an empty doll allows him to feel nothing and put grief aside, it allows him to distance himself from others to prevent his father from hurting them. Shouldering death is a way to protect others, but it's also the only means his father ever taught him and this will remain "the only one" as long as the latter is alive ( nevertheless, this point could be nuanced with the fact that Omen usually don't kill/use his powers etc.. ). In the end, I kinda feel like his father remain a sort of persistent background pattern . Then, like a butterfly trapped within a spiderweb, the more he will try to escape, the more he will get stuck and so the grief will be. Like all roads lead to Rome,  all paths he'll choose will lead him to "the inevitable" => the center of the labyrinth he's been trapped into since he was a kid. Hatred, resilience, denying, gloominess, there are so many ways to put off grief, and choosing the right "name" for those feelings/ means can be a harsh thing to do, even more when time is running out.
Grief is a flower that never truly fades, however one can choose to bathe it in tears or in the warmth of a genuine smile. There aren't bad or good choices but only one that will allow them to move forward - and, whatever the outcome may be, I truly hope that Omen will be able to move forward, to look at his own flower without being hurt by "its faded scales". 

- about Omen's "purpose"/" motivation" : his father's death being "the inevitable", it's become the focal point of Omen's life - the flower to which he's irrevocably drawn, to which he's trapped. Then, when all one has ever known and lived for is that same flower, what happens when it withers? When revenge is erected as a driving force/ motivator, characters are supposed to start living when their "thirst" is quenched, when their goal is reached, when their vengeance is satisfied - and when the latter involves death, death is seen as liberation. However, when this "revenge" is inevitable, things are different : whether the butterfly likes it or not, the flower will wither. So the only choice before it happens is either to take off early ( find a purpose ) or to stay on the flower ( distract oneself or face reality / killing it or watching it wither ). And all this is, I think, part of this "putting off the grief" mechanism you explained. On the other hand, I wonder if it could  be linked to the fence metaphor too. In this case, Omen's father is in a way the last flower in his garden, and when it withers, our Butterfly will be alone, without purpose, hollow, facing himself .  Perhaps beyond the fear of "going to the other side of the fence", there's also the fear of being alone with himself, of seeing his garden empty, devoid of flowers- except maybe one remnant : the grief flower, the only flower the butterfly can cling to for now. Then "crossing the fence" would take on a whole new dimension,  linked to the butterfly effect, to its wingbeats, biologically / symbolically speaking .

- about the "butterfly effect" : firstly let me correct this horrendous grammar  mistake =>  " As his father's blindness is a result of the "butterfly effect", it could be said that Omen has "succeeded" in protecting Aelem from it" here I meant " protecting Aelem from HIM" not from " IT" :| Anyway, since the beginning, "the butterfly effect" was presented in a pessimistic light, which is relevant in that such a vision is similar to Omen's view of his powers . Nevertheless, I wonder if such a power might not have a positive effect in the end? Like a sort of double-edged blade? I mean, his father went blind because Omen's wound weakened him, and it's because of his blindness that he didn't see Aelem as a  "Leviathan" but as a simple "human being" and hated her as such instead of killing her. On the other hand, such a situation could echo the fact that everything has a price and that free things, such as "normalcy" or "life" cost the most in the end. In other words, for someone to live a "normal" life, someone else has to pay the price, sadly.

Loading...

Loading...

Loading...

Loading...

Loading...

Loading...

1

Mar 19, 2024

Once again, this chapter brilliantly illustrates the concept of "names" or, more simply, how the same name can have different meanings. Here, I think the two main concepts are "child" and "fear" (although fear may not be the proper word, sadly it's the only one my sleepy brain can think of). 

Concerning Omen: to understand what such concepts mean to him, it's necessary to keep in mind the "lesson" his father taught him when he was a child, or in other words, that every person he becomes attached to will become one of his weaknesses, which he'll have to protect - something he is "unable"  to do.

Putting this idea alongside that of the "butterfly" creates a more interesting dynamic. Because Omen is a butterfly, he is naturally inclined to fly towards flowers and help them bloom - whether unconsciously or not. And in the idea of "helping them bloom" lies the idea of a certain protection. Yet, how can he pursue this purpose, if every flower he lands on is meant to be destroyed by his father? (as evidenced by his mother's death and Cael's missing wings - on this point, I assume that such mutilation is his father's work, but perhaps I'm just overthinking). 

Condemning a flower to wither, preventing it from flowering in the long term - these are just some of the implicit butterfly effects that a few wingbeats can produce. And these are so many effects that contradict the butterfly's primary purpose, its very nature . In a way,  Omen is in the middle of two antithetical goals: flying towards the flowers and flying away from them. 

I find this really interesting. It's even more so considering - as you explained previously- the notion of "purpose" as a "distraction" from the inevitable. 

Just as all roads lead to Rome, any "purpose" Omen chooses to pursue will lead him back to his father and the "inevitable" he embodies.

Anyway, with all these ideas in mind, then two solutions are possible to protect  others : to distance oneself from them - not to land on the flower - or to put some "distance" - by becoming an impassive doll devoid of feelings. And once again, such hypotheses are brilliantly illustrated. The first is through Cael, a "child" - a vulnerable being in need of protection - whom Omen has """" abandoned""" to prevent her from suffering the same fate as his mother. The second is simply Omen's attitude towards others, his constant distance (perhaps this explains why he's "afraid" of going to see Juni, in that she was one of his childhood "friends" or at least a playmate, but I'm not entirely sure). 

Concerning Aelem, we have a more "innocent" vision. As she's just a "camera of the world", having been a mere spectator of other people's lives, I think that for her, a child symbolizes more the "product" of a relationship between two people. This could explain the emotions our protagonist feels when Juni mentions the word "child", "your child", "my child", as well as the question she asks Omen about his relationship with the witch. 

Finally, concerning Juni, the word "child" implies a certain sarcasm, a certain second degree, as someone might do when talking about their pets, or when addressing a "friend" or someone "close". 

Side note 1 about "so your usefulness is in the present moment": applied to the other characters, this line has even more meaning. In Aelem's case, it would mean freeing herself from the "past" (her people's history) that holds her back, to take full advantage of the present moment.For Omen, turning his back on the future, the inevitable, to be fully "present". ( this surely needs to be nuanced ) 
Side note 2 : Given the importance of "names", I wanna believe that Omen naming Aelem "my lover" has much more meaning than a simple "joke" or a result of sarcasm
Side note 3 : In this chapter Omen seemed to be less empty, experiencing more spontaneous emotions
Side note 4 : As his father's blindness is a result of the "butterfly effect", it could be said that Omen has "succeeded" in protecting Aelem from it, in that the latter is  unable to "see" her and what she represents. Of course, that doesn't make him unable to hate her.

Loading...

Loading...

Loading...

Loading...

Loading...

Loading...

1

Mar 10, 2024

The future is a mirror without glass, a gloomy void where one wanders, hoping to avoid the reflection of their past mistakes tinted with regrets, guided by a dim sparkle of hope. Then, in this vacuity our doll stray itself, its lips muttering to its conscience " I have no other foe to fear save Fear" ( Frederic Lawrence Knowles ), its footsteps colliding with shards of glass - only remnants of a heart he once had.

Such a mirror stands before Omen's eyes in this forest on the edge of the Misted Veil. In it, "weakness" (Aelem), "ability" (in its moral dimension - to protect - and in its material dimension - the so-called butterfly effect), "Fear" (in front of imposing brigands, facing the threat), "death" *are as many reflections of that night when he became a spectator in spite of himself, his acting not being sufficient. However, now things have changed, our Butterfly has grown up, and so has his "acting", enabling him to act and break these reflections one by one with the blade of his sword.

In the past, due to his "youthful weakness", Omen's power "worked" slowly, too slowly, implying among other things that "the enemy" could not be "readily killed". With this in mind, then Omen father being blind is only the result, a long-term aftermath of the wound the gold haired boy inflicted on his face by throwing the knife at him (if I remember correctly). This is reinforced by the fact that his father told him that his "ability" will weaken him within fifteen years. In the woods, on the other hand, the "butterfly effect" works in a wingbeat, so to speak, wiping the life from the brigand's bodies in a handful of seconds.

Now our Knight can act like a useful monster, just as his father instructed him to do. For the sake of others, he shoulders death, just as his father taught him. And then following these words, he looks up again towards the sky " where the sun that had bathed the morning in warmth had faded, giving way to dark gray storms clouds". Once again, life and its warmth had been eclipsed by death, leaving only a harsh winter behind. Perhaps looking to the sky is his way of addressing his late mother. So, perhaps, for her sake, he will shoulder his father's death? But is this what he really wants, or in other words, is killing his father part of his own sake? I have mixed feelings about this, but I'll keep my thoughts for later.

Anyway, at first I thought that "soon he'll die by my hands" meant that Omen was going to kill his father in the generic sense of the term, i.e. without his powers, with his own ability. Now, with the scope of his powers in mind, I'm just wondering if it doesn't simply refer to his powers finishing him off in the long run. Perhaps later Omen will have to make a choice between these hypotheses? A choice between life and death, or to use the Leviathan metaphor, a choice between letting the dragon get the better of him or continuing to live with it, cohabiting. Here, "letting the dragon take control" would imply the death of his father, and by extension continuing to shed blood and perpetrate his Will, while "cohabiting" would imply the choice for Omen to live with his hatred carved into his bones without making the wish to quench his thirst for vengeance the main purpose of his life, the only way to heal himself.

After all, ' "Happiness" is a butterfly which, pursued, never lets itself be caught but which, if one know how to sit still, will perhaps one day come to rest on the shoulder.'

Side note : From its abstract symbolism to its "biological" aspect and the various ideas linked to its lexical field, I do really appreciate how you chose to explore the concept of "butterfly". Knowing that the latter is a pollinator in the same way as the bee, I think it's a nice link to make with the hyacinth - Aelem's flower. Beyond Omen's powers, the butterfly effect can be applied to many other situations in the story, which again is really interesting and well thought-out ^^ Beyond that, now I'm wondering how far you've chosen/will choose to "explore" this concept further. Among its facets, one that comes to my mind is the tragic fate of the butterfly due to its very short life expectancy, once it has hatched. In a way, all its efforts and suffering will "only" enable it to spread its magnificent wings for a limited time. But on the other hand, this time will contain the best moments of its existence, as it will be free to explore the other side of the fence as it wishes. Knowing that the butterfly is also a symbol of eternity, isn't it ironic that sometimes, "forever" may feel brief as it comes to an end ?

Loading...

Loading...

Loading...

Loading...

Loading...

Loading...

1